Constitutional Anarchy

I love the American constitution. I love the constitution and the law under it, just the way it was written, along with the first ten amendments, and before the Neutrality Act and the Logan Act were enacted. Believe it or not, the American constitution is the only document in the world that upholds a lawful, non-chaotic form of anarchy. But most people do not know that, and I did not know that, either, until I started researching Theodosia and the Pirates.

Anarchy in this sense does not mean chaos or lawlessness. It also does not mean no government. It means no government monopoly on force.

In today's debate between Anarchists and Minarchists in libertarian circles, the government monopoly on force is the real issue. Nobody argues that there should be no government. What they are really arguing about is whether the government should have the sole right to enforce the law -- whether through a police force, an army, a navy or a court system.

What should you do if you see a crime committed? Should you call the police and stand idly by? Or should you actively engage in fighting the criminal? What should you do if you see a bad cop beating up a fellow citizen? Should you assume that  because he works for the government, he has a monopoly on force? Or should you move in to help enforce real justice, just as you would with every other criminal?

What should you do if your country is invaded? Should you enlist in the Armed Forces, or could you also help out as a privateer? Should the government confiscate your arms and your private battle ships to its own use, or should you just be able to volunteer to help using your own means?

 What should you do if war seems imminent between the United States and another country, but you think it could all be avoided by proper diplomacy? Should you leave it up to the State Department, when you personally could go talk to the foreign representatives and suggest ways to avoid the war, even if your elected officials disagree? That's what Dr. Logan did. And people in the government did not like it. So they passed a law! Should a law like that be enforced? Why?

Dr. George Logan, Private Diplomat -- attribution

Power over life and death, war and peace, should reside in the people as individuals, and our government is only there to provide a friendly framework. The framework of laws should be something all of us actually agree to. If there is a law on the books that nobody obeys -- like the speed limit -- then it should be nullified. The government is there to serve us. We are not there to serve it.

That in a nutshell is constitutional anarchy. It is not chaos. It is not lawlessness. It is a framework of laws that work, because the people agree to them. It's what the founding fathers had in mind, or at least a majority of them did. It was the law of the land -- and it was that each man should do what was right in his own eyes. Not since the days of the Judges was there such an ideal form of government.

Should We Repeal the Logan Act?

Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_zmPSrW8AAXC3A.jpg

It's funny how obscure laws passed during the administration of John Adams keep surfacing at the oddest of times. John Adams was a British-leaning, one term president who signed into law a very unpopular legislation package called the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798.

John Adams Source: Wikipedia

The Sedition Act, which was a part of this package, provided for a punishment of up to two years imprisonment for "opposing or resisting any law of the United States or writing or publishing false, scandalous and malicious writing about the President of the United States or Congress, but not about the Vice President."(Source: Wikipedia)  Opposing any law of the United States under the Sedition Act did not mean violating that law: it meant campaigning to have it repealed. Writing scandalous and malicious things about the President did not mean, apparently, just libel and defamation, as there were already measures against that. It meant writing things about them which may be true, though scandalous. (The "and" in "false, scandalous and malicious" was interpreted as an "or".) The Vice President, on the other hand, was not shielded by these laws from having scandalous but true things written about him, because the Vice President at the time was Adams' chief rival, Thomas Jefferson. When Jefferson came to power, he allowed the Alien and Sedition Act to expire, and he compensated all the people who were harmed by it.

However, the Logan Act, passed during the same period,(January 30, 1799) was not ever repealed. It has also not ever been successfully prosecuted, and its constitutionality is in question. 

The Logan  Act is named for Dr. George Logan of Pennsylvania, who during Adams' undeclared and unconstitutional war with France, took it upon himself to try to improve matters between the two countries. According to Kevin Kearney:

Upon his arrival in Paris, he met with various French officials, including Talleyrand. During these meetings, he identified himself as a private citizen, discussed matters of general interest to the French, and told his audience that anti-French sentiment was prevalent in the United States. Logan's conversation with Merlin de Douai, who occupied the highest political office in the French republic, was typical. Logan stated that he did not intend to explain the American government's position, nor to criticize that of France. Instead, he suggested ways in which France could improve relations with the United States, to the benefit of both countries. He also told Merlin that pro-British propagandists in the United States were portraying the French as corrupt and anxious for war, and were stating that any friend of French principles necessarily was an enemy of the United States. Within days of Logan's last meeting, the French took steps to relieve the tensions between the two nations; they lifted the trade embargo then in place, and released American seamen held captive in French jails.

The Federalist Party, and John Adams at its head, were very jealous about the praise showered on Dr. Logan for his successful negotiation with the French, so  they passed a law forbidding any American from ever doing something like that again. Logan was later elected to Congress, during Jefferson's term of office, but for some reason, he was never able to get the Logan Act repealed, though he did try. 

Only one person was ever indicted under the Logan Act and that was in 1803. Nobody has ever been convicted under it. Its constitutionality has never been upheld. 

Should we repeal the Logan Act? Or is this legacy from John Adams restricting Americans from speaking on behalf of other Americans to foreign governments to be upheld? Was what Dr, Logan did in France really so very bad?

References

 Kearney, Kevin M. (1987). "Private Citizens in Foreign Affairs: A Constitutional Analysis". Emory Law Journal. 36. (winter)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts